Rodriguez v. Hubbard et al

Filing 108

ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendation 103 and Dismissing without Prejudice Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington, Soto, Grissom, Davis, Foster, and Freir, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/16/14. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

LUIS VALENZUELA RODRIGUEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

Case No. 1:10-cv-00858 LJO DLB PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS
HUBBARD, CATE, HARRINGTON, SOTO,
GRISSOM, DAVIS, FOSTER, AND FREIR
[ECF Nos. 103]

v.
HUBBARD, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Luis Valenzuela Rodriguez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil

18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 5, 2010. Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma
19 pauperis, having paid the $350.00 filing fee on July 30, 2010. The matter was referred to a
20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21

On October 29, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that

22 recommended Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington, Soto, Grissom, Davis, Foster, and Freir be
23 DISMISSED from the action for failure to effect service. The Findings and Recommendation
24 was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within
25 fourteen (14) days. On December 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and
26 Recommendation.
27

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

28 a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file including Plaintiff’s

1

1 objections, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record
2 and by proper analysis.
3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendation are

4 ADOPTED in full. Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington, Soto, Grissom, Davis, Foster, and
5 Freir are DISMISSED from the action without prejudice for failure to effect service.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

December 16, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2